Sorry but I have to disagree with you there RedSword. The Crusader sources themselves spoke of wealth as a motivating factor. Fulcher of Chartres wrote the following:
Likewise, in the Gesta Francorum, Bohemond of Taranto is recorded as saying to his men: ‘'Today, please God, you will all win much booty' (those are both translations but I can dig up the Latin quotes when I’m at home if needed, and the translations I give of both are accurate). The Crusaders very much saw booty as a motivating factor: which in mo way detracts from their piety. Quite the reverse, as they believed that their piety would be rewarded by booty - this kind of doublethink was very much common in the Middle agrs. Heck, sources describe Crusaders both high and low literally claiming houses during the Sack of Jerusalem.
Re colonialism, there’s a clear division between the people who had prospects in Europe and were doing it with the original intent of returning (Robert of Normandy, Stephen of Blois, etc.) and the ones who weren’t (Bohemond, his nephew Tancred, Baldwin of Edessa). I mean, Baldwin brought his wife and children, he clearly had no intent of returning and was bucking to claim territory from the start. Also, peasants were very much hoping to settle the region - entire villages left seeking the ‘land of milk and honey’. So…no, it wasn’t purely a devotional exercise. Or more accurately, the devotional was intertwined inextricably with the mercenary.
EDIT: Also, the comments on the cost require a certain perspective. As Dr Conor Kostick - who’s one of the better modern Crusade historians - notes in The Siege of Jerusalem, Europe in 1094 and 1095 saw a major outbreak of famine and disease thanks to ergot poisoning so the East looked considerably more attractive…